enowning
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
 
Lee Siegel, in The Gay Science: Queer Theory, Literature, and the Sexualization of Everything, explains where hermeneutics went.
Modern hermeneutics, from Schleiermacher through Hans Georg Gadamer's Truth and Method (1960), has run in two currents. The first was the gradual conditioning of meaning and value on the shifting templates of psychology, history, and, most of all, language. In this outlook, the self was always on the verge of cognitive calamity. But the second current was founded on Gadamer's belief that mutual comprehension and shared values between people was possible. The so-called hermeneutic circle--to understand the whole, you have to grasp the parts, which changes your perception of the whole; to understand a part, you have to grasp the whole, which changes your perception of the part--was not a ceaseless flux. It was an affirmation that ultimate meaning exists as an elusive mystery, that it can be grasped in shards and echoes, and that preservation of a secret itself communicates a cherishable meaning.

Gadamer borrowed many of his ideas from Heidegger, but Heidegger had sown the iron seeds of hermeneutical extremism. He lowered the boom on hermeneutics by raising the stakes: he made the hermeneutical enterprise synonymous with existence itself. For Heidegger, "Being" is the ultimate truth of existence: to go about the business of living in the deepest sense is to go about the business of interpreting truth and finally understanding it. Such "Being," however, is beyond rational articulation. So obscure, so mystifying, so all-encompassing is Heidegger's Being that, his vatic pretensions notwithstanding, it leaves nothing to interpret but other interpretations.

And this was the loftily regressive situation from which the French poststructuralists embarked. Dismissing Heidegger's foundation of Being as a quaint metaphysical holdover, they retained his assault on reason. They made their happy escape from shared meaning.

Pp. 184-5
 
Comments:
Hi, Its John from Melbourne.

I think everyone makes far too much of the supposed influence of individual philosophers. Why?

Like everyone else they were/are fully enfolded in the dominant zeitgeist of their time and place and hence every dimension of their being was unconsciously patterned by this dominant zeitgeist. It was/is quite literally structured into the tissues and fascia of the bodily being.

Individual philosophers such as Heidegger had some inkling of the horrible absurdity of the "culture" in which they were living, but did not have the tools to thoroughly examine the absurdity, let alone by which to live a life of Freedom and Grace.

The little known book Spacious Body: Explorations in Somatic Ontology by Jeffrey Maitland offers a brilliant analysis of how deeply and thoroughly this entrapment in a rigidified body occurs. And how extraordinarily difficult it is to break out of the steel hard trap. By the way Maitland has eleven references to books by and about Heidegger in his bibliography.

In his Acknowledgements he has this to say about a book titled The Enlightenment of the Whole Body--"the works of Da Free John offer some of the clearest and most straight forward descriptions of metasomatosis that I have ever read"

A quote from Da Free John, now Adi Da Samraj.

"Love, not reason, should make decisions. Decisions nased on reason and not love are karmic.

Therefore, let the heart be your intelligence. The heart is unreasonable. The heart is mad. And the heart is the ground I Call you to walk on.

The only way to overcome the murderer that is the cosmos is to love. Allow the heart to break, and be that sign. Be a feeling being. Then you cannot be murdered, you cannot be a fool, you cannot be deceived."

This essay says the same thing.

http://www.dabase.org/tfrbkgil.htm
 
Post a Comment

<< Home
For when Ereignis is not sufficient.

Appropriation appropriates! Send your appropriations to enowning at gmail.com.

View mobile version